Re: FW: Cygwin PostgreSQL Information and Suggestions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 12:31 PM
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org; Jason(at)tishler(dot)net
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] FW: Cygwin PostgreSQL Information and Suggestions
>
>
>
> "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> forwards:
> > 4. Cygwin PostgreSQL is perceived to have poor performance. I have
> > never done any benchmarks regarding this issue, but apparently Terry
> > Carlin (from the defunct Great Bridge) did:
>
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-cygwin/2001-08/msg00029.php
>
> > Specifically, he indicates the following:
>
> > BTW, Up through 40 users, PostgreSQL under CYGWIN using the TPC-C
> > benchmark performed very much the same as Linux PostgreSQL on the
> > exact hardware.
>
> It should be noted that the benchmark Terry is describing fires up
> N concurrent backends and then measures the runtime for a specific query
> workload. So it's not measuring connection startup time, which is
> alleged by some to be Cygwin's weak spot. Nonetheless, I invite the
> Postgres-on-Cygwin-isn't-worth-our-time camp to produce some benchmarks
> supporting their position. I'm getting tired of reading unsubstantiated
> assertions.

... and it's worth remembering, too, that for some cases, connect time is
completely unimportant: most of my work against PG is using shared,
persistent connections from a web app (Zope); it could take 20 mins to make
the initial connection and I'd still be happy. (Note to hackers: do not
implement this 20min connect, though. :) )

- J.

Joel BURTON | joel(at)joelburton(dot)com | joelburton.com | aim: wjoelburton
Knowledge Management & Technology Consultant